Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-222"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20000215.10.2-222"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"I do not quite understand what the Commissioner said. The mudflat at Stregrennan, which was made a special protection area at the request of the Commission, has been completely destroyed at this stage. It is clear that the activities that have taken place there are in clear breach of EU directives. You say there will be no further funding. I would like to know whether you are going to stop completely the funding at this stage until there is a proper investigation. If not, why not? If you are, when exactly are you going to do it? Is it correct and proper that the department which owns the company is also the authority which issues the licence, and also the authority which basically takes the money from the EU and gives it to a company that it owns 100%? Is this right and proper? What is your opinion on that? Any EU funding for the project must be stopped because it is in clear breach of EU directives. Even the area designated by the Commissioners as a special protection area has been destroyed. Compensation afterwards is not going to make up for the damage that was done."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph